Justin Martyr, Worship in The Early Church & The Necessity of Polemics

Justin Martyr and the Shape of Early Christian Worship

We've talked about the apologist. Remember Justin Martyr, who we were just reading. He's an apologist. Now we're going to look at a different type of person, the polemicist. So an apologist is one who gives a reply.

An apologist is giving answers to somebody who is on the outside. Polemicist is very different. He's addressing people who are on the inside, not on the outside, and he's addressing who? False teachers.

Just the whole approach, an apologist will be more diplomatic, kind, patient, trying to teach and give an answer. A polemicist is at war. So we're continuing with lesson number four in the book Forerunners of the Faith.

This chapter is called, titled Contending for the Faith. So we ended last week talking about a man named Justin Martyr. So Justin Martyr was what? An apologist or was he involved in polemics? Because these are the two things we're talking about.

Yeah, he was an apologist. So we saw that he died in 165. We didn't get to his death, but it says here in my book, at least that he was beheaded around the year 165. So it says after debating a Roman philosopher named Cretans, Justin was denounced to the authorities as a Christian.

He was beheaded around the year 165 during the reign of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. So it says here in his first apology written around the year 150, Justin describes an early church service. Does everyone have that?

The description of what an early church service was like? We know what church services are like today. So we want to read this and see if church was similar back then. So here's what Justin wrote. And on the day called Sunday, all so far so good.

Okay. Much to the chagrin of the Seventh-day Adventists, I'm sure, who claimed that the Pope did this centuries later. No, it was actually from the beginning. Justin wrote, and on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the gathered together to one place and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the apostles, or excuse me, of the writings of the prophets are read.

So we see that he's calling the epistles, he's calling it the memoirs or the gospels are the memoirs. Yeah, that's fair to call them that. But what's he talking about? He's talking about the New Testament writings or the Old Testament writings of the prophets.

So they gathered together in one place, the early Christians did on Sunday. The writings of the apostles were read or the writings of the prophets. And as long as time permits, then when the reader had ceased, the president or the pastor verbally instructs and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.

Then we all rise together and pray. And as we said before, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability and the people assent saying, amen.

And there is a distribution to each and a participation of that over which thanks has been given. And to those who are absent, a portion is sent by the deacons and they who are well-to-do and willing give what each thinks fit.

And what is collected is deposited with the president who cares for the orphans and widows and those who through sickness and any other cause are in want and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us and in a word takes care over all who are in need.

But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly because it is the first day on which God having wrought a change in the darkness and matter made the world and Jesus Christ, our savior on the same day, the first day of the week, Sunday rose from the dead.

So it says here, Justin's description provides a good idea of what took place in a second century church service. Notice at least six important components of the worship service. Number one, the scripture was read.

Now do we do that today? Yeah. Any new Testament church will read the scripture. So the scripture was read from both new Testament, which he calls the memoirs of the apostles and the old Testament, the writings of the prophets.

So that's the first thing. The second thing they point out in the book, the pastor or, you know, called the president or whoever is, you know, presiding over the service, the pastor preached a message or a discourse exhorting the people to obey the things that they just heard from scripture.

And this is still what you see. You know, we open with a passage from today. We're doing the book of Matthew. You read a passage and the pastor, me, you know, explains it and exhorts you to apply it to your life so far.

So good, right? It doesn't sound like obviously a church service is going to look a little different, different part of the world, different language, but we say, see some of the same things happening.

Number three, the congregation prayed together. Do we do that? Yeah. The congregation participated in commemorating the Lord's supper. Okay. Now do we do that? Now we don't do it every week. Some churches do.

Some don't. We can talk about that in a moment. Number five, a free will offering was collected to meet the needs of fellow saints. We do have a free will offering a little different back then the people were, were poor.

I mean, there, there were people who really had no assurance of what they were going to eat tomorrow. So there was more poverty and maybe communal living back then that just isn't necessary in the most wealthy society in the world.

So, I mean, that that's changed a little bit, but we still have a free will offering number six, the service took place on Sunday, the day on which Jesus rose from the dead. So believers today can be encouraged when they participate in those same activities at their local church, faithful churches from the second century to today have been characterized by these Bible based practices.

Okay. So here's the discussion question. What encourages you the most about Justin's description of a second century church service? So we'll start with that question. There's one more after that. What encourages you the most Kareem?

That it's basically the same what we do today. Right. Yeah. I mean that, I guess that's the obvious answer that the church is still doing the same, same things. Worship service, even now it looks pretty much, pretty much the same in structure as it was back then.

Why is that an encouragement? Well, it shows we haven't strayed like way, way, way, way, way off course over the centuries. Anyone else have an answer for that? What encourages you? The Bible was read.

Yeah. I mean, it has to be focused around the word. Marcus, you had something. Well, it's not a question or an answer to that question, but it, well, it does apply. What was interesting to me was I was in a church that was founded in the second century in Nazareth and the church building itself, interestingly enough, was very ornate.

I have photos in my camera for any that would like to see it. Okay. More ornate than our church this morning. So, I mean, if, you know, as you're trying to envision what their building might have been like.

Right. And obviously the buildings changed over the years. I'm not sure exactly, you know, where he was at this point. There would have been some places where you really couldn't have a church building because of persecution.

Once that was allowed and people started building buildings and the more money you had, the more ornate and elaborate they could become. And then at the reformation, some went back to that, you know, stripped down, just plain old meeting house.

And there's different ideas of what a church should be, but you know, that's not really getting into the building here, but Ray, you got a, it doesn't say, are they still in houses? Yeah. It is a building just for the purpose.

Yeah. I don't think it mentions that. It's just talking about wherever they are, here's what they were doing because that, that is really what matters, not the building. Cause we try to stress the churches, the people, but what do the people do?

Okay. That's what we're looking at. So I don't, I didn't see any comments about the building, Larry. But one thing I didn't see is singing. Right. Right. Rather than Thanksgiving prayers. Right. Yeah.

I've made that point before I was at acts two 42. They continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine, the breaking of bread, fellowship, and, you know, in prayer. And the one thing that isn't mentioned is the rock concert, you know, but that's what a lot of church, we all love music in the old Testament.

There was music involved in the, in the worship of the Lord. And we recognize that music is important is, is it a vital part? Well, maybe it's not absolutely essential, but we love music. Amen. But I think it becomes a problem where modern churches, the music is the main event.

I mean, that's why people go because of the concert. Okay. So, okay. Back to the fact of the lesson, what encourages encourages you the most? We talked about that. What did you find to be the most interesting part about his description?

What is the most interesting? Well, for me, it's that a communion was taken every week. I mean, and I I've read some things before, and that seemed to be very common that communion was done whenever there was a service communion was held.

Of course, back then communion was a meal. So over time, now it's become a little wafer in a little sip back then, you know, you are traveling probably for some people, a great distance, and you were there for quite a while.

And for the worship service, the communion service that there was an actual meal. So the bread and wine and water was brought out. So that's one of the things that has stood out to me, just the difference in how communion is done.

And I've often thought about that and how maybe we could do it differently, more like they did back then. But it's one of those things that, you know, tradition is strong with people. Well, we've always done it this way.

And when you start tampering with the way it's done, that often doesn't go well. But to me, that was the one thing that jumped out. What about somebody else? Brad? I thought it was interesting that the offering was turned over to the pastor or president, and then the primary use for it was to help the poor.

Right. Right. Yeah. I mean, that's obviously, as I alluded to when we were reading through it, that is one difference. Today, pastors would not, first of all, pastors wouldn't want the responsibility of handling all the money because then that just gives people an opportunity to maybe, you know, today we're very careful about how money is handled and who has oversight over it.

And if the pastor is collecting it himself and he's doing everything, then that can open him up to, you know, accusations. So over time that changed to protect the pastor and just out of wisdom. But as far as helping the poor, I mean, churches, depending on where you are and who's in the congregation, I mean, churches still do help the poor.

Again, in the United States where this is, you know, the wealthiest country the world has ever seen. And even people who are in low income households still have a house and a car and air conditioning.

So it's a little bit of a different situation, but at the same time, you know, you don't want to use that as an excuse not to help anybody, but it's a different climate, I guess, is why that looks a little different from today.

The Difference Between Apologists and Polemicists

So we looked at the discussion questions. So now we're going to move on to number four. We've talked about the apologist. Remember Justin Martyr, who we were just reading, he's an apologist. Now we're going to look at a different type of person, the polemicist.

Okay. So remember we talked about the difference between an apologist and a polemicist. So an apologist is one who gives a reply. An apologist is giving answers to somebody who is on the outside. So today an apologist might go to a college campus and he's talking to young people who are skeptical, they're atheists, they're agnostics, and he's giving them a reply of why Christianity is true, why they should believe it.

A polemicist is very different. He's addressing people who are on the inside, not on the outside, and he's addressing who? False teachers. So just the whole approach, an apologist will be more diplomatic, kind, patient, trying to teach and give an answer.

A polemicist is at war. Remember that word, polemics, comes from the, you know, in whatever language, Latin, it means at war. So a polemicist is really battling with the false teachers who are within the church.

So two totally different things, the apologist and the polemicist. So it says here, in addition to persecution, the New Testament also warns Christianity about the reality of who or what? False teachers, right?

And this has sort of been a theme lately of things we've been talking about because, you know, we've been going through this. And just to give you a quick update on our local situation dealing with heresy, God answered prayer in an amazing way yesterday.

Not only was that, well, not only was that heretical podcast removed in the past week, so now it's disappeared. Here's the great answer to prayer. Nearly all the local evangelical pastors have agreed to not permit the false teachers into the church.

So for the past six months, you know, there's been one side saying you can't allow false teachers into the church, going through the polemics, right? And then there was a small group that was kind of defending their right to be there.

Well, now everyone has assented to, yes, we are all in agreement. They are not allowed in the local church until they repent. So God answered. I went into the meeting yesterday so skeptical. I didn't think that was going to happen.

And we came out unified and, wow. Yeah. Amen. That was a great, that was a great, great victory. So anyways, back to the book, that's what we have to deal with. And they were dealing with it in the second century, third century, every century.

For example, the book says Paul exhorted the Ephesian elders with these words, Acts 20, 29 and 30. I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. And from among your own selves, men will arise speaking perverse things.

For what purpose? To draw away the disciples after them. So as a pastor, I want to make disciples. You know, I would love it if there is a young man in the church, maybe it doesn't even have to be a young man, but you know, they really start studying the word and that, you know, they teach Sunday school and then they get into preaching.

And then maybe someone from this congregation could be a pastor someday. I mean, that would be an ideal, but we're all, we're all being, we're all disciples hopefully. And we're being trained in discipleship so that you can serve here in the local church and you can go out and tell people about Christ.

Well, here's the thing, false teachers are also making disciples. So just as we want to go out and convert people to Christ, they want to, and are trying to go out and even come into churches and try to recruit people to convert them into their, you know, deconstruction and apostasy.

So the church is making disciples, false teachers also make disciples. And this is what Paul is warning about. And many of them are going to come from the churches. So they'll come up in a local church and then they'll usually leave and then go out and be involved in that activity.

From the earliest stages of church history, we see both the rise of false teachers who seek to distort the truth and the resolve of genuine believers who are zealous to defend the truth. Okay. So the false teachers distort the truth.

Genuine believers defend the truth. So now it goes into four ancient heresies. And here's what we want to do. Not just look at, okay, here's some false teaching that was happening 15, 1800 years ago. We want to look at this and say, is this type of thing happening now?

And, you know, just to give you a little hint, yes, yes, yes. What are the ancient heresies? You had to fill these in, in your book. What's the first one? Gnosticism. Gnosticism. Okay, good. Number two, Marcionism.

Number three, Modalism. And then number four, Montanism. So I think most of you have heard at least of Gnosticism and Modalism, but let's go through these. Gnosticism is a diverse group of false movements that each claimed to possess secret knowledge.

That's what Gnosis means. Knowledge. So the Gnostics claimed that secret hidden knowledge. The Greek word Gnosis means knowledge. Gnosticism was characterized by forms of dualism in which material things were viewed as inferior or evil in comparison with spiritual realities.

You may say, yeah, but wait, isn't that what the Bible teaches? See, someone could think that, but, but God never said that the creation was evil. God said the creation was what? In the beginning, he said everything was good.

It's very good. But because of the curse, it became corrupt. But in Christ, God is going to do what? Just destroy his creation. I know there's people who believe that. I believe God is going to redeem his creation.

So physical things are not evil. They've just been corrupted. God's going to restore and redeem all things. But as anyways, back to this, as a result, Gnostic groups generally denied that Jesus had a real physical body.

Instead, they wrongly claimed that he only had the appearance of a body. Now you've probably never heard anyone teach that. I don't know anyone who's teaching that today, but yeah, their idea is God is spirit.

Only spirit is good. If Jesus was God, he couldn't come and have a body because all physical things are evil. Okay. And this is what John, you see, it says, see second John seven. So this is where John calls the false teachers anti-Christ.

He said, don't welcome them into your house or bid them God's speed. But that's probably what those false teachers were saying that Christ did not have a physical body. All right. Anyone familiar with Gnosticism run into it at all?

Anything? Mark. Right. Well, so, so a universalist, okay. I'm thinking of Unitarian. So a Unitarian would deny Christ deity, a universalist. I'm not sure. I'm not, yeah, I'm not sure if they would deny that Christ, to my knowledge, none of the groups out there are denying that Christ has a physical body, but I do know I've had friends, people I went to school with over the years, they've kind of rejected Christianity because, you know, that's what people do.

But they've gotten interested in what are called the Gnostic gospels. So you'll often hear people say, well, the Bible, you know, that was just chosen by some church council. And there's all these other books that should be in the Bible.

What about the gospel of Thomas? And these are the Gnostic gospels, which are forgeries written hundreds of years later, written by this heretical group. So if anyone ever asked you, what about the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Judas or the God, I mean, that should be a red flag, the gospel of Judas.

Maybe it's the other Judas. I don't know. But yeah, Gnosticism is bad news, but it's not really an issue today, except that people will want to read the Gnostic gospels. That's a threat. Marcionism is the second one.

In keeping with the Gnostic ideas about the inferiority of the physical world, Marcion of Sinope died in the year 160. He taught that the God of the Old Testament was an evil deity. Now I have run into this because, why is he evil?

Well, it's because he created the physical universe. Marcion further insisted that Jesus was sent by an unknown God to save people from the God of the Old Testament. To purport his views, Marcion rejected the Old Testament and most of the writings of the apostles.

In response to Marcion, and other false teachers, Christians began to create lists of the books that the church recognized as canonical. So this, the Marcion heresy forced the church to say, okay, these are the books that are, you know, part of the New Testament and these are not.

Here's where I've run into this. Anytime you've heard somebody say, well, the God of the Old Testament is so mean and filled with wrath, but the God of the New Testament is just so kind and loving. Who's heard that?

I mean, I think most people at some point have heard that. I've been teaching adult Sunday school here at Moores Corner Church for 15 years. I remember back in the early days, you know, for me, the early days, I remember one or two people expressing an idea like that.

And they're probably not, you know, Marcionite heretic, but they've, they're repeating things that they've heard where people have this idea that, yeah, the God of the Old Testament is one way. The God of the New Testament is another way.

And she's like, hold on a minute. Wait a second. Are you telling me there are two different gods? Most of the time people will say, oh no, that's no, it's the same God. But God was just kind of more wrathful in the Old Testament.

Of course that's wrong too. God doesn't change. So people read through some of the New Testament letters and they have this idea in their mind. And it's just, you know, be careful with that because the book of revelation in the Bible, the most wrath in scripture is in the book of revelation.

And that's like at the end of the New Testament. So it's not just an Old Testament thing. God was loving in the Old Testament because he saved and redeemed people back then too. But this is a little more common than the first thing.

Did I see a hand, Marcus? You'd have to deny the authority of scripture to do that because both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, it says, I do not change. Right. Yeah. So Marcion, there was just the Old Testament.

He didn't like that. Do away with the Old Testament. The closest thing I can think of today is a man in Georgia who teaches his congregation that Christians need to unhitch from the Old Testament. Does that sound familiar?

Yeah. But he, he isn't really a Marcionite, but that idea that the Old Testament just do away with that. No, Larry, would that be dispensationalism on how God deals with man differently throughout different times?

I think people who would say that the Old Testament isn't as relevant. That might be a dispensational idea. I mean, there's some truth to that, that we're not offering sacrifices and there's all this stuff written to Israel that doesn't apply to us.

I mean, no matter which form or church tradition you're a part of, you kind of have to recognize that. But as long as you affirm the authority of the Old Testament, that it's true, not all of it applies.

But as Paul said, in second Timothy three 16, all scripture is profitable for what doctrine and the only scripture. Well, there were some new Testament books at that time, but he was mainly referring to his Bible that he grew up with, which was the Old Testament.

I see another hand, Mark Jefferson Bible. Isn't that Jefferson? He just took out what he didn't like. Right. I think Jefferson, it wasn't so much that he thought there were two different gods or that the Old Testament was the problem.

Jefferson, from what I understand, just cut out everything that was miraculous or supernatural, which is hard to believe you'd have much left. But but yeah, that there's all sorts of people who I believe the Bible.

Well, but not this part, not this part, not this part, not this part. And then it's like, OK, well, you don't really believe it then if you only believe bits and pieces. One more comment on Marcion. Question.

Yes. Are we implying that dispensationalism is incorrect? No, I'm saying, well, Larry brought up what did you say about dispensationalism? This is this a form of dispensationalism in how God deals with.

Modalism, the Trinity, and Oneness Pentecostalism

No, it's not. Marcionism has nothing to do with dispensationalism. So no, that is not being implied. OK, good. Good question, though. Next, modalism. This is far more common. There are modalists all over the place.

Modalism basically is a denial of the Trinity that taught that sometimes God operates in the mode of the father, sometimes in the mode of the son and sometimes in the mode of the Holy Spirit. But never as three distinct co-eternal persons.

According to this view, the father became the son at the incarnation, leading to the conclusion that it was the father who suffered on the cross. This error called patri-passionism, I think I'm pronouncing that correctly, which means father's suffering was rejected as heretical by the early church.

A primary proponent of modalism was Sibelius, who taught in Rome in the early third century. So did God the father die on the cross for us? No. Who died on the cross? Jesus died on the cross, not God the father.

Sometimes you'll hear atheists. Oh, you believe that, you know, God became a man and what we do believe that God became a man. But we also believe that the man, Jesus Christ, is not God the father. And then they'll say what?

Oh, that what I was getting at is the atheists will say, what was Jesus on the cross when he said, my God, my God, why is thou forsaken me? What are you saying? Jesus was praying to himself, right? Have you heard this like a way people mock?

Oh, what Jesus was praying to himself? Well, no, Jesus was praying to who? God the father, because he was up there and Jesus was on the cross. So the father did not die on the cross, but modalism. Yeah.

Here's where modalism can kind of sneak into any local church. And listen, if you're a Sunday school teacher and I've probably done this too, I'm not being critical. And I know this is not what people are trying to do, but anytime we've tried to show little kids, well, the Trinity is like water.

Sometimes the water is frozen and it's ice, but then it can change form to water. And then if you heat it up, it can become vapor. So the Trinity is like, you know, the three, but it's one, it's the same, but it can be in different forms.

Who's heard that as sort of an illustration. Okay. Technically that's modalism. So that's not correct. That is not a proper way to describe the Trinity, you know, to maybe help a little five-year-old or something.

Again, I wouldn't be too hard on someone, but just know that's, technically not how the Trinity is. I don't think there's any real comparison to the Trinity. What on earth can you compare to the triune God, but yeah.

Aaron. Sure. You know, like the egg is another illustration. You got the yolk, you got the white, you got the shell, or you got the three leaf clover. It's one clover, but three, all of those line up with an ancient heresy.

And there's, there's a really funny video on YouTube from a channel called Lutheran satire. Who's seen this? Okay. Well, if you saw it, you would know it, but anyways, you can look that up. It's kind of funny, but that just the way people describe it, it's not, it's not really accurate, but modalism.

There are modalists today. Who knows where you can find modalism. It's most often found within a group known as oneness Pentecostals. So when the Pentecostal movement began in 1901, 1905, around that time, many of the early Pentecostals denied the Trinity, they believed in modalism.

Okay. It's also called the oneness. Yeah. Uh, today, uh, TD Jake's is probably the most well known, uh, modalist, uh, his disciple, Steven Furtick has been accused of modalism. And when people have asked them, it sounds like this is what you're teaching.

Are you teaching that? And they, they, they won't answer or they don't give a straight answer. So maybe some would say that they're not actually modalists, but TD Jake's did come from that oneness Pentecostal tradition.

And it certainly sounds like that's what they believe, but technically modalism is, is considered an ancient heresy, but the next one, Montanism, this is something that I'm not even all that familiar with it, but I'll just read it.

It says a movement known as the new prophecy by its followers. It was started by a self-proclaimed prophet named Montanus. So this is the late second century who is accompanied by two prophetesses, Maximilia and Priscilla insisting that the Holy spirit was giving them new revelation for the church.

They often prophesied in a static in dramatic ways. Their prophecies promoted extreme forms of self asceticism and predicted that Jesus would return shortly to set up the new Jerusalem in the region of Phrygia.

The church ultimately rejected the movement as heretical. Okay. So Montanism, you heard the description. What does it sound like to you? Is there anything today that's close to Montanism that God is there's prophets today and God is continuing to give new fresh revelation?

Yeah. Well, I mean, among that crowd, uh, like the Benny Hinn crowd, I would say this is the closest thing you get to this today is what is called the new apostolic reformation, NAR. So this would be some people like, uh, Bethel church, uh, Bill Johnson, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, those types of people that claim that God is constantly just giving them new revelation.

God is just speaking to them like constantly. Now they never take their writings and say, Hey, we should add it to the scripture. Thankfully they haven't gone that far. Uh, but you know, this idea of a static States, you, you, you seen some of these crusades where Benny Hinn takes his jacket and swings it and the guys flopping on the ground and rolling, and everyone's just kind of going, going nuts.

I mean, that's in the, they're claiming direct revelation that there are prophets and apostles today. That's the closest thing I would say to a Montanism that you have. Is it Montanism? No, it's not exactly the same, but like he said, it's the closest thing.

So, uh, in response to these errors of false teaching, the church was careful to articulate its doctrinal convictions. That's the one good thing about false teaching. It forces the church to kind of sure things up and to make it clear, okay, you're saying all this wrong stuff.

We're going to clarify the truth. That's, that's the one good thing that comes from it. These theological convictions were grounded in the authority of scripture. Yet their expression was often clarified in the face of heretical attack.

We will consider a couple of the early polemicists who engaged in refuted false teaching in this lesson. So we're not going to have time really to get into these men today, but there is a number a or the letter a Iraneus of lions.

You see that in your book? Okay. So he's the first one. The second one, Tertullian of Carthage, that's B. And then later on, it'll be origin of Alexandria. So these will be the three polemicists that we'll be looking at mostly next week.